On Mon, 29 Dec 2003, fbsd_user wrote:
> There is no kernel in the boot directory on my 5.2 RC2 system. There
> is an boot sub-directory named kernel that contains 150 files, one
> of them being kernel that's around the correct size to be the
> GENERIC binary kernel.
Like I said, "KERNEL AND COMPANY ARE IN /boot/kernel".
> Are you telling me that the kernel binary is moved from an easy
> uncluttered location in 4.9 of / to a location 2 directory levels
> deep and surrounded with a bunch of clutter?
I am telling you that the kernel has moved from ONE file to ONE directory,
placed in /boot which makes perfect sense to me.
It looks like this might be an easier way to manage kernel modules for
each kernel that is build.
What is the big deal? Revert back to 4.x if you can't handle it.
> What king of stupid system design decision is that?
> Is it possible this is an mistake?
> Should an problem report be make to point this error out the 5.2
> release team?
If you honestly think that the release team would "accidentally make a
directory in /boot instead of a file in /" then I think figuring this
whole thing out is the least of your problems.
> Ooh, sorry. kernel & co. are in /boot/kernel. If you want to back
> it up,
> cd /boot ; cp -R kernel kernel.GENERIC
you'd think that "with 30 years technical experience installing mainframe
operating systems" you would be able to handle that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"